Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


LMAO: Jim Jordan’s Question To Sondland Has Him Laughing… While Making A Great Point (Video)

Sometimes the best response to something as absurd as Schiff’s circus is open mockery. And unlike Schiff’s attempts at ‘parody’ this one is actually funny.

The Democrats seem to think they have an airtight case that Trump did a bad thing. What that bad thing is changes by the hour, but they’re certain they have him dead to rights.

Jim Jordan took his turn in questioning today’s victim — er, witness — who has the misfortune of being compelled to sit in a room as the focus of this spectacle where rules of evidence go to die.

And he had some fun pointing out the absurdity of the ‘quid pro quo’ claims that have been alleged against Trump.

You have to admit, it’s a much gentler approach than just attacking the witness about being wrong. Since Sondland is one of the ones to invoke ‘quid pro quo’ language, but was careful to acknowledge that it was his perception, Jim Jordan asked a few questions.

(To help better understand this context, Sondland had earlier tied his conviction of ‘quid pro quo’ being in play was like the math equation 2+2=4 where that was the only reasonable conclusion.)

And here’s the longer version with the full segment.

“The meeting that never happened, who was in it?”

You got all three of them wrong. They get the call, they get the meeting, they get the money.

“It’s not 2+2 it’s 0 for 3.”

“You said to the President of the United States, what do you want from Ukraine. The president: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zalensky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran on. What’d he run on Ambassador Sonland?” (Sondland: Transparency) “And dealing with corruption, right? (Sondland: That’s right)

Jordan then asked a strong question about why such an important exculpatory statement was left out of the Ambassador’s opening statement.

If this were an honest ‘inquiry’ we could all go home by now.

But it’s not. Schiff and Co. will find some pretext to vote for impeachment. This is all for show.

How can we tell? Well, for one thing, after Schiff had questioned the witness, but before Nunes had the opportunity to cross-examine, Schiff gavelled a recess so that he could find a TV camera to get his message out.

That’s every bit as damning to the credibility and seriousness of this ‘impartial’ process as any of the many violations of ethics, protocol, and countless centuries of jurisprudence would be.

But we’re all supposed to nod somberly and take this super-seriously.


Wes Walker

Wes Walker is the author of "Blueprint For a Government that Doesn't Suck". He has been lighting up since its inception in July of 2012. Follow on twitter: @Republicanuck

Related Articles